Ford's new engine...6.7ltr - Page 9

HBarlow · 10-29-2009, 02:45 AM

I'm also skeptical about "wonderful new ideas" like reversing the intake and exhaust. If it's such a good idea why is Furd the only one that ever thought of it?

High tech materials and methods may be great in high performance sports cars but to my simple mind, old, tried and proven, are best for truck use and durability under heavy loads.

Motorhead · 10-29-2009, 03:17 AM

What Ford needs to do is put that engine in some UPS package cars for a TRUE Torture Testing!!! I know...I worked there for 30 years and if anyone could put an engine through its paces, WE COULD!
I always told people that a UPS truck has only TWO positions on the throttle....
Idle and WIDE OPEN!

Ncostello · 10-29-2009, 04:55 AM

Why Compacted Graphite Iron?

It seems compacted graphite iron is old school actually. Now-a-days it seems to be worth the cost. I bet typical cast gray iron is simply cheaper which is why US car makers held on to it for so long. All Nascar blocks are CGI. Looks like US engine builders are way behind...ie: 1949 behind.

I have no idea if Ford actually came up with the reverse flow heads. I've often noticed technology that shows up on cars...like 4 valve heads or overhead cams...was proven on aircraft engines many many years prior to being used on car engines. Not that this is where the idea came from. I'm just saying.

If memory serves me correct...the first place I saw it was actually on the now shelved 4.5L GM Duramax originally planned for 1/2 ton trucks. It too had the reverse flow heads.

Quote:

If it's such a good idea why is Furd the only one that ever thought of it?

What? Isn't that the whole point of the "idea"? IE: Nobody ever thought of it? How can anyone use something if nobody ever thought of it? And once someone has the idea...nobody else can think of it. Its done been thinked of

. At that point is just copying.

rscurtis · 10-29-2009, 03:16 PM

The idea of the exhaust in the Vee of an engine is nothing new. It's been around since the '30's when Charles Kettering designed the 567 locomotive engine, and I believe Cadillacs of the early thirties also had center-mounted exhaust manifolds. He could have been responsible for that too.

'strokeThis_'07 · 10-30-2009, 05:43 AM

The reverse flow idea certainly isnt new. Theres never been a production engine that used it, but racers back in the day would take Ford Flatheads and reverse the flow on them. Ive seen smallblock Chevys with the flow reversed. The 4.5L Duramax was the first to flirt with the idea in production, but the 6.7 Powerstroke will be the first to actually produce one...

ACerf · 11-09-2009, 04:29 PM

I read all of your comments about this new Ford Diesel and based on past performance of Ford Diesels (even though they were HI engines) I am not sure that Ford has a better idea! I know that I would not buy a Ford with this engine in it. To me base on previous Ford history with new engines this will have its problems! This is about as good an idea has Fiat talking about putting one of there diesel in place of the Cummins!

rscurtis · 11-09-2009, 08:40 PM

If you've ever seen the insides of a Ford tractor engine, upon which the 6.6 and 7.8 Litre truck engines are based, you will see that Ford knows (knew) how to build a diesel engine. Whether they still have the ability is yet to be seen, and very shortly at that.

rbattelle · 11-09-2009, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rscurtis

If you've ever seen the insides of a Ford tractor engine, upon which the 6.6 and 7.8 Litre truck engines are based, you will see that Ford knows (knew) how to build a diesel engine. Whether they still have the ability is yet to be seen, and very shortly at that.

There's a subtle point here that's worth bringing out. If we accept that at one time in the past (30 years ago?) Ford had the knowledge to build a robust, practical, efficient engine, then the question is, do they still have that knowledge?

I am generally of the opinion that what was done in the past (say 1935 - 1960) was excellent. Unfortunately, many young people (especially managers) are of the opposite opinion - that the way things were done in the past is wrong, and now with modern equipment we really know how to do things right.

Look back at those videos from Ford. Was there anyone over the age of 50 in there? If you've got a tough engineering job, don't you want the salty old curmudgeon down the hall to be involved? [Maybe they leave him off the videos?] From what knowledge base is Ford drawing for this design? Do they still have guys around who worked on the old Ford diesels?

Ryan

HBarlow · 11-10-2009, 01:24 PM

Four good posts in a row which I agree with.

Furd my have culled all the old timers and have only a bunch of young hotshots with large egos and over inflated self-confidence. We'll know if Furd can produce a reliable diesel engine before long.

If I was the engineer in charge of the new engine project at Furd going up against the mighty and already proven Cummins ISB6.7 and the EPA I wouldn't buy a new home with a mortgage or make any other long term committments for the next couple of years. Early retirement might be in the future of some.

ACerf · 11-10-2009, 04:55 PM

When I think of Ford engines that were not quite up to par. The Pinto 1600 is one exsample. When Ford brought back the Thunderbird in the 80' the engine was breaking Cam Shafts. The 3.8 that I had in my 1989 Sable kept breaking motor mounts, 6 sets in fact! Engine also had water leaks. And of course the 6.0 was a total bust, and even though ford did not make the engine. I think they should have been working closer with HI to make engineering changes.

Wingate · 11-10-2009, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACerf

And of course the 6.0 was a total bust, and even though ford did not make the engine. I think they should have been working closer with HI to make engineering changes.

I agree... But its become common practice for some manufacturers to put a product out that is sub-standard. Then when it fails or doesn't perform as intended, they throw their supplier under the bus! Personally, I believe that Ford is doing that to Navistar to some extent. I STILL have no clue as to why Ford wouuld fight to keep the Powerstroke name??? I realize the 7.3 was a good engine, but people tend to remember the bad and recent more than the old and good.
I always wondered why it was that the Firestone tires that blew out on the rear of Explorers (Exploders) never blew out on my in-laws Chevy? And never blew out on several trailers that we had them on???...

'strokeThis_'07 · 11-11-2009, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wingate

I STILL have no clue as to why Ford wouuld fight to keep the Powerstroke name??? I realize the 7.3 was a good engine, but people tend to remember the bad and recent more than the old and good

Not much of a fight when they OWN the name/brand Powerstroke. You have to remember, Ford folks seem to be blindly loyal to Ford. Their response to the 6.0 is "it wasnt that bad." or "they fixed them after 2004/05" both of which are crap statements. The 6.0 WAS that bad. ITs horrible!! And no, they NEVER got the problems fixed. They addressed some issues, but you could go buy a brand new 07 and have the same problems as 03 owners had.

And ask many Ford owners. They owned an 03, had problems so traded it in on an 04. Again, more problems, traded on an 05. Yet more issues, traded on an 07. Still problems. Now have a 6.4 and its gods gift to the world. Go ahead, ask them!

Does it make sense to continually buy the same POS again and again...? No. But thats a Ford owner for you

HBarlow · 11-11-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'strokeThis_'07

Not much of a fight when they OWN the name/brand Powerstroke. You have to remember, Ford folks seem to be blindly loyal to Ford. Their response to the 6.0 is "it wasnt that bad." or "they fixed them after 2004/05" both of which are crap statements. The 6.0 WAS that bad. ITs horrible!! And no, they NEVER got the problems fixed. They addressed some issues, but you could go buy a brand new 07 and have the same problems as 03 owners had.

And ask many Ford owners. They owned an 03, had problems so traded it in on an 04. Again, more problems, traded on an 05. Yet more issues, traded on an 07. Still problems. Now have a 6.4 and its gods gift to the world. Go ahead, ask them!

Does it make sense to continually buy the same POS again and again...? No. But thats a Ford owner for you

I chuckled as I read your analysis and opinion of Furds and Furd owners. I have heard and read exactly the same words from several, many Furd owners. They excuse the previous disaster and buy anther one.

It is said that a definition of insanity it to continue doing the same thing while expecting different results. That definition seem to describe Furd diesel-powered light truck buyers.

RGardner · 11-11-2009, 01:21 PM

Not so sure that I would agree witht the Ford tractor engines being good. I bought a 1992 Ford 8830 with 2000 hrs on the clock. It had shelled the motor and the dealer had put a new factory motor back in the tractor. At 4000 the motor shells again. A good diesel engine should last longer than 2000 hours!

rbattelle · 11-11-2009, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'strokeThis_'07

Now have a 6.4 and its gods gift to the world. Go ahead, ask them!

The truth about the 6.4 won't come out until after the 6.7 is released. If the 6.4 is as great as they say, why didn't Ford fight harder to resolve it's differences with International so they could continue to bring their customers the great engines they come to expect from Ford?

Have you guys seen that Mac vs. PC commercial where they flash back to PC talking about how the new operating system won't have any of the problems of the previous one? Brilliant - and equally applicable to Ford and Microsoft.

Ryan